The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently comprising of a division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Archana Puri while overruling a Single-Bench Judgment allowed the registration of marriage of a couple through video-conferencing facility. (Ami Ranjan and another v. State of Haryana and another)
The Bench was hearing a Letter Patent Appeal directed against the judgment passed by a Single Bench refusing to permit the couple to undergo e-registration of their marriage.
The Single Judge Bench had held that there is no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without parties appearing in person before the marriage officer.
Facts of the case
The petitioners Ami Ranjan and his wife Misha Verma approached the court, filing the appeal against the judgment of a single judge of the High Court, whereby a writ petition, filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order issued by the Deputy Collector-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram, was dismissed. It was held that there was no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without the parties appearing in person before the marriage officer.
Issue before the court
Whether a certificate of marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book, as prescribed in the 5th Schedule, has to be signed by both parties to the marriage along with three witnesses and whether this process can be done by video conference?
Contention of the parties
The counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Jharkhand in Upasana Bali and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2013) 1 AIR Jhar R 741, wherein the husband was citizen of Sweden and the wife was residing in Australia. They both were residing at London (United Kingdom) and their marriage was solemnized in Ranchi (Jharkhand). They were having a small
baby boy of eight (08) months. Their son's passport could not be issued without the marriage certificate of petitioners. The petitioners could not come to India leaving their eight months' old son alone at London. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition by holding that application for registration of marriage under the Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2002, can be made through their power of attorney holder and the Registering Authority was to safisfy himself about the marriage of the petitioners through video-conferencing. It was observed that presence of the parties could be secured through video conference in specific cases, where such procedure requires because of the peculiar facts of such cases. While allowing the petition, reference was made to a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, 2003 (4) SCC 601.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Additional A.G., Haryana, vehemently argued that as per Sections 15, 16, 18 and 47 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, an application for registration of marriage has to be signed by both the parties and thereafter, the Marriage Officer has to give public notice.
After satisfying that all the conditions of Section 15 are fulfilled, the Marriage Officer has to enter certificate of marriage in the Marriage Certificate Book. All the procedure has to be carried out in the presence of Marriage Officer, so as to make it authentic document. As per the Act, signatures of both the parties have to be there in the application for registration of the marriage and only thereafter, enquiry as per Section 16 of the Act starts. Hence, merely because the appellants are working in foreign
countries and their working conditions or their personal compulsions render it difficult to be present before the Marriage Officer cannot be make a ground to overlook the provisions of law. Their presence and signatures in the Marriage Certificate Book are mandatory.
The counsel further argued that only for the intermediatory process, the video conference can be conducted. The Marriage Officer had accommodated the parties at the initial stage by permitting petitioner-appellant No.1 to be present before him through video conference at the time of first motion and moving of the application for registration of marriage. At the final stage, for signing the Marriage Certificate Book, their presence is mandatory and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Learned State counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Deepak Krishan and another vs. District Registrar, Ernakulam and others, 2007 AIR (Kerala) 257 on the proposition that Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 are mandatory in nature. The District Marriage Officer cannot proceed to register the marriage by reducing the period of 30 days as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.
He has further referred to the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in Sarala Baby vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (24) RCR (Civil) 43, wherein while considering Rule 11 of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Commom) Rules, 2008, it was held that personal appearance of the spouses is mandatory for registration of the marriage. If registration of marriage is permitted without personal appearance, then this facility can be greately abused.
Courts Observation and judgment
Single bench Observation and judgment
Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petition, has held that as per the provisions of aforesaid Act, procedure prescribed for registration of the marriage requires that parties should be present in person along with two witnesses.
A new procedure qua appearance of parties for the satisfaction of the Marriage Officer, as well as, qua maintenance of the public record called the Marriage Certificate Book, under Section 47 of the Act, cannot be followed. The process of video conference, at best, can be resorted to during the intermediatory process of the inquiry to be conducted by the Marriage Officer.
For the registration of marriage, parties have to be present in person as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. There the parties have to sign the Marriage Certificate Book in the prsence of witnesses. The Marriage Certificate Book cannot be signed by a party through a distant mode.
Division Bench Observation and judgment
The Court at the outset referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, 2003 (4) SCC 601, wherein the Top Court had examined the procedure of recording the evidence by way of video conferencing.
The Court further noted that as per the Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence, and thus, even in criminal matters, evidence could also, be taken by way of electronic records and this would include video conferencing.
The Court also referred to the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Pardeep Kodiveedu Cletus vs. Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), 2018 (1) ILR (Kerala) 377, wherein it was ruled that the Local Registrar is empowered to obtain their personal appearance through video conferencing.
Having perused the rulings of various HCs and of the Apex Court, the Court held,
" Hence, for all intents and purposes, under the criminal law, presence of the witness is not necessary before the Court for recording of his evidence. In the same manner, for the purpose of issuing the marriage registration certificate, as held by the High Court of Jharkhand in Upasana Bali and another vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2013) 1 AIR Jhar R 741, parties to the marriage can appear before the Registering Officer through video conference."
Further, the Court noted that the husband was not seeking his wife's complete exemption from appearance before the Registrar of Marriage, in fact, his prayer was that the wife should be allowed to appear through videoconferencing for marriage registration.
The Court thus directed,
"In this case, presence of Misha Verma (Wife) can be secured through video conferencing, and presence of husband-Ami Ranjan and three witnesses can be marked by their appearance in the office of Registrar of Marriages. Then, the certificate of marriage can be issued on doing verification of facts as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act. Once, the marriage certificate is issued, it can be made part of the public record under Section 47 of the Act by entering it into the Marriage Certificate Book."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
